"The Trajectory of the Concept of Sovereignty for Early Modern Politics"

Abstract
"On the question of the framing of sovereignty in modern politics one could quip-echoing what Whitehead said about the remainder of philosophy in relation to Plato--that
rest of thinkers (Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, et al) of the modern tradition of political
thought are mostly footnotes to Hobbes. One could say that Hobbes's construction of the
concept of sovereignty seems to be the common point of reference for all later treatment
in modern political thought--where he fundamentally intertwines together sovereignty,
the body politic, and the state. This paper looks at the way Hobbes got to his framing of
the concept. Also this paper will distinguish how Hobbes used prior terms rhetorically
and substantively."

"The Trajectory of the Concept of Sovereignty for Early Modern Politics"

One could quip--echoing what Whitehead said about the remainder of philosophy in
relation to Plato--that rest of thinkers (Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, et al) of the modern
tradition of political thought on the issue of sovereignty are mostly footnotes to Hobbes.
This is to say they seem to be fundamentally working from his same use of the concept
and are only modifying it where they see inconsistencies or issues that need for further
clarification than Hobbes himself gave. What this paper seeks to offer not a tracking of
what followed from Hobbes but how Hobbes got there.
The modern view of sovereignty that Hobbes uses/incorporates and transform, arise at the
same time as the breakdown of the medieval political system, when various powerful
Kings of whole ethnic nations competed for power with other such Kings and were no
longer willing to submit to Papal authority. All this happens about the time right around
the Reformation.
The Machiavellian Start
One of the strongest voices of criticism of the Roman Church and the Bishop of Rome
and his interference in temporal matter was the former diplomat Nicolo Machiavelli, who
served in the late Florentine Republic. Before the restoration of the Medici family over
the city of Florence, Machiavelli served as a diplomat of the Republic to many powerful
Courts of Europe, including to the Vatican. His first hand witness to the political intrigue
that lead to the Spanish and later French Invasion of Italy and their power grab over parts
of Italy lead him to be highly critical not only of the current Italian political systems of
City-Republics, but also the role the Vatican played in this sorry story. What Machiavelli
sought was an Italy that would be free from Foreign Control, yet such an Italy would

never come from the current set of political powers that governed Italy, and especially
never from the Vatican and the Roman clergy.
What Machiavelli required was a revolution in thinking about the political system that
would have to govern Italy if it was ever to become free. And for Machiavelli such a
system would be the State lead by and created by a strong and powerful Prince (or
Lawgiver in his other work telling his readers, although those with more leisure given its
size, about all he has learned about politics, The Discourse). For Machiavelli, the State
would be the tool by which the Prince will establish his rule and free Italy from the
foreign powers, including the Roman Church. Yet Machiavellis understanding of the
State was still too tied to a personal ruler and although he sets the state by which the
nation can effectively be governed and governed in such a manner that empowers the
nation that it can seek glory and dominance over its peers. In fact Machiavellis use of the
of the concept of stato as a instrument of princely will to give new modes and orders
suggest that it is an instrument of form, that which give shape to the principality or
republic. That conceptually Machiavellis concept of stato has more in common with
the Greek concept politeia (regime/political system) than with the unit of political
communitythe polis (city)and thus different from how the state as transformed by
Hobbes will appear. For Machiavelli, the state is that which forms and gives shape to the
Princes will and thus gives order to the civic space, be it republic or principality. It is
thus the formal part that give shapes to the whole body of the civic space, as in classical
political thought the politeia shapes the polis whole.
Bodins Turn
If Machiavelli still to a great degree relies upon an older version of the ruler and bodied
sovereign, Bodin offers a more important transition to the modern conception of
sovereignty as the territorial body politic of a nation or people. Although Bodins
understanding of sovereignty still rests kingly power under the norms of law, and justice
as found in the natural law teaching of the Catholic Church in the late Middle Ages, his
introduction of the concept of the Body Politic provides the needed segway to what
Hobbes does with this concept.
This is done because Bodin is trying to find a place for the recovery and revival of
republican thought and republican rule that followed the renaissance rediscovery of
classical thought and the power of various Italian city-states that have embraced the
concept of the republic. With the recovery of the possibility of republican rule and the
recovery of classical understanding of politics as separate in form from household rule
required either a change of political speech, which at the time spoke of princely rule and
the princely bodyhis body and his territorial body, or a whole new political language.
Given the negative reaction to Machiavellis even minor revolution, any radical break
with the political concepts and language of the past would not be successful. To avoid
the perception that monarchy and the princely system and the new recovery of political
and republican rule are fundamentally different on their level of being and thus
incompatible to each other, Bodin had to find a way to allow both systems to find a
common political language. So using the language of the sovereigns body and allowing

the political community to be understood as this territorial body, Bodin finds a way to
connect these two traditions of rule.
Thus Bodins reading of both the classical republican tradition and classical
understanding of politics to work within the linguistic construct of reality of feudal and
kingly rule. And this was accomplished by separating the civic space from the territory
of the household. One must keep in mind the intimate connection between property
owner and his property (as most clearly expressed in the concept of the Kings two
bodies) and how this would blur household rule and political rule if this connection had
to be extended to non-monarchical/princely forms of rule. Thus the concept of owning of
property of the territory by the ruler had to be extended simply. So the rulers actual
physical body had to be divorced from the territorial body, especially if this concept was
going to be working when speaking about political systems where there was numerous
persons sharing in rule. Thus Bodins treatment of the body politic offers a solution to
this problem, yet at the same time he really had no way to resolve the tension between
monarchy and republican-political rule. Yes they could now talk to each other and
explain their forms of ruling in the same way, but Bodins solution was not a solution but
more of a ruse to mask the problem, so to protect this infant recovery of classical politics
from the ruling order from suppressing it, as previous projects of philosophic/intellectual
recovery had been throughout the Middle Ages.
If Bodins use of the concept of the body politics is ruse to protect the recovery of
classical politics and help restore political-republican rule, Hobbes taking of Bodins
concept and sets it firmly on clear and consistent philosophical ground. Cause it is really
only with Hobbes that the modern concept of Sovereignty gets its clearest formulation
and expression. For Hobbes the formation of the body politics and its sovereign body
arises from the Social Contract, where people consent to from such a body for their
mutual security and protection from the war of all again that nature permits.
Grotius Role
The introduction of the Machiavellian concept of the state had immediate impact on the
political scene of the 16th century. The state when embraced by various political actors of
the period found their political fortunes altered. The concept of the modern state was
simply so effective in organizing and empowering the political actors of the time that it
changed the balance of forces among the various political actors of the time, within the
structure of the 'Res publica christiana' or the political embodiment of Christendom that
was the remains of the Holy Roman Empirefounded by Charlemagne but an order
limited to the feudal mechanism that shaped and constituted its form and structure and
thus really never as effective or as powerful as the Roman Imperium. The political actors
who rejected the existing political modes and orders and opted for the new Machivallian
ones found themselves at a competitive advantage over those political actors who refused
to follow in kind. This imbalance of power and ability led to a challenge to the status quo
of the Res publica Christiana and the imperial institutions that give political shape to it.
The rise of the actor on the political scene who embraced the state to achieve their
ambitionseither domestic or for foreign conquestso destabilized the environment that

the given international political order of the Res publica Christiana which was the order
shaping the political reality of the middle ages. Well the new unstable environment cause
by the introduction of the state on the political scene of the time led to conflict, but not
the type of conflict that usually defined the conflict of competing rulers fighting for new
realms to rule or merely to retain their reigns. The state was definitely a game changer
and those actor who embraced and established their rule into a state tended to be at a
competitive advantage over those rulers who failed to embrace the concept of the state or
failing to establish a state in lieu of their older forms of rule.
The breakdown of the Res publica Christiana also broke the rule of the ius gentium that
governed the European political environment from the time of the Roman Empire to this
point in time. The ius gentium was the rule book that defined rules of ruling (what rulers
and any other political actor could or could not do) and the rules that restrained what
political actors of the time could or could not do in regards both towards eachother and
towards their subjects. The law of nations that the Romans give and which the Res
publica Christiana retained use of (and by retaining its use claimed this was evidence that
it was the true successor to the Roman Empire in the West) that shaped the environment
of political action before the introduction of the concept of the modern state.
Polis cosmopolis imperium imperium + christanity Res publica Christiana
The state changed the game so much the old rules that defined and help govern the
interaction of political actors no longer seem to work well with the new political
environment of the interaction of states amongst other states. Hence the old international
law resting on the Roman ius gentium was no longer reflecting the real political realities
that the state produced. Thus there was a need for new international law to govern or
help govern the interaction of states and provide useful limits as to prevent the type of
conflict that these state could being about.
As Machiavelli noted the new mode and order of the state would lead to innovations in
military affairs and those innovations in military affairs fundamentally altered both the
ways wars would be waged but also their impact on all parties caught within conflict.
Thus the news laws of nations were as much a means to regulate and control the state and
their actions among each other in so to avoid the negative consequences the new power
that state gave to the actors using it, but allowing for the positive consequences to be
allowed and encouraged to occur.
The outbreak of the Thirty Year War is all too often attributed to the Reformation and the
breakdown the religious consensus that it brought to Res publica Christiana. But this
view is a bit one too sided and totally misses the impact that the modern state led to that
made any repeat of the Treaty of Augsburg impossible, which was mostly done via. the
Imperial instruments of the existing Imperial order, which for the most part was unable to
effectively embrace the new mode and orders of the modern state due to how the
Empires guardians understood it character and its role maintaining order over the inferior
bodies under its authority. The outcomes of the Thirty Year War required a recognition of
the new international environment to be that of the reign of states and the they

collectively not the empire acting on behalf of all was to be the instrument enforcing the
peace of the Treaty of Westphalia brought about.
It could be said that the Treaty of Westphalia merely recognized the reality of a system of
states and established a set of norms by which states would be guided by to prevent future
break down into total war. The horrors of the Thirty Year War were so recognized and so
destructive that no state actor, especially those Germanic-Bohemian state actors who bore
the burnt of the wars consequences any repeat of such a war was to be avoided as best as
one could. Thus a new international law to guide the community of states was therefore
needed. This is where Hugo Grotius comes into play. It could be rightfully said that he
helped to shape the Westphalia system that would govern affairs up until our very current
time.
Some might argue that I am neglecting Francisco Surez. But I would suggest that
Surezs by his attempt to remain within the Thomistic/Scholastic tradition of natural law.
Surez thus seeks to modify and fix the existing Thomistic Natural Law understanding of
the ius gentium rather to establish a new system as Grotus seems to be doing. Grotus not
being so indebted to nor much enamored with this Scholastic/Thomistic tradition he was
not adverse from follow in Machiavellis footsteps and establish new modes and orders.
Although for him the older pre-Thomstic natural right traditions were still helpful, the
need was to help allow the modern state to work within a framework that was not create
to deal with. Whereas Machiavelli had no concern with the claims of natural right or at
least openly made no attempt to give head to those claims, Grotius sought to find the
natural right that would work for states and help govern and balance the actions of states
per se. Thus although for Grotius the establishment of modern international law as a
system of natural right for the modern state.
Repeating, the older classical tradition of natural right was not created to envision the
actions of states as the very concept of the state did not exist when the tradition of
classical natural right emerged and evolved into the ius gentium of later periods. The fact
that classical natural right was not established for states but the forms of political
community that preceded (the polis and later the empire as a form of cosmopolis as found
in the Stoic rewrite of natural right) also led to the fact that it also was not necessarily
able to deal with various political concepts that emerge out of the modern statethat of
sovereignty, legitimacy, etc. If one look within classical natural right for the concept of
either sovereignty or legitimacyto name the biggest two new items that flow from the
concept of that stateyou will look in vain as these concepts are no where to be found in
the works of authors of classical natural right because they did not exist per se. Thus
natural right needs to either be modified or re-casted to allow for the state to fit within it.
Grotius opted for a refit but a more thorough refit than Surez would offer.
Grotius recasting of classical natural right to work into classical natural right the state and
the problems that the state bring to the issues that shape classical natural right and
thereby recasts a new law of nationsso to allow to be more effective than the older ius
gentium in dealing with the outcomes and actions the new state give heed to.

Now the means that givens shape to this new recasting of natural right is Grotius
introduction of the realm of nature (albeit a nature that is inherently social) out of which
state are to emerge. This new realm of nature in Grotius allow for the arising of the state
and the possibility that in prior times the might have been no states, as such is historically
factualas the state is only a product of modern political thought and not present in
classical or medieval political thought. This state of nature Grotius speaks of helps
address why states emerge where before there were no states. Now this is done because
Grotius realizes that the state is an emerging political property and not simply one that
would be found continually in all human history. So there is a period of political or social
action prior to the existence of the state that needed to be addressed and thus with this
state of nature can help explain the interaction between the pre and post state stage of
political development. Nonetheless Grotius state of nature remains more true to the
Classical natural right tradition of classical political philosophy because it remains social.
The historical contingency of the state lead to a separation of the state per se and the
natural social state of man, thereby the state is that political form allow for a more perfect
ordering of mans social nature. Although Grotius use of a state of nature allow for
Hobbes to seem to follow in his shoes with his similar insistence there exists this state of
the human condition prior to the happening of the state. But unlike Grotiuss, Hobbes
state of nature is not only pre-state but pre-social per se.
Returning to Hobbes
For Hobbes the commonwealth that emerges from the social compact is said to be an
artificial person. All too often people misread Hobbes and his discussion here, and read
the creation of the commonwealth with that of an actual incarnate, i.e., bodied, sovereign.
This is far from what Hobbes is up to. The sovereign in Hobbes cannot be embodied by a
single being, in that it is the collective agreement, the collective will of those who agreed
to from the commonwealth. Thus the sovereign is the collective embodiment of the all
those who from the commonwealth and caused it creation out of the chaos of nature.
Thus the sovereign in Hobbes is the collective wills of those who created the political
community via. the social contract. So for Hobbes, the body politic, the commonwealth,
the State and the Sovereign are different terms all ultimately expressing the same thing.
Thus sovereignty is the will of those who form the civic association, body politics,
political community, state, or whatever you call it. Thus in Hobbes reasoning the state is
the whole, not an instrument or part as it was in Machiavelli. Thus Hobbes is much more
radically breaking with classical teaching about the political community than is
Machiavelli, in that for the classical model the ruling element is a part of the whole (that
claims to be acting for the wholes best interest and for its goodyet its still remain a
part of the whole) rather that the body politics or political community in itself. In
classical political thought the ruling part or politieia (regime/political system) is not
identical with the political community, rather its the part that gives shapes to and forms
the given direction by which the political community will go. Whereas for Hobbes, the
state is the whole community, per se, for it is constituted by those who forming it when
they form the social compact that solidity and confirm their creation of one single
community.

Thus for Hobbes the community is a product of human willing, not of mere human
association. So the creation of a community is a product of human will, not human
nature. Thus being a product of human willing, the political community knows no limit.
So the territory of the body politic is not a factor in the logic of Hobbes thinking.
Territory is tied to people who form the community when they join together via the social
contract. So the act of willing to join together that frame the contractual character of the
origins of the state in Hobbes, merely takes for granted given communities of people or
nations. But there is no logical reason within Hobbes framework that contracting parties
must be of the same racial, ethic, or territorial make up. Yes such condition will make
contracting easier, but such parts or limits have no role in the basic logic of the
Hobbesian state.